Electronic Arts: Supreme Court won't hear appeal in NFL video game lawsuit
Mar 22, 2016 08:47 PM EDT
The high court refused to hear the appeal of video game giant Electronic Arts Inc., saying its usage of the player's likenesses was not protected as "incidental use" under the First Amendment. The company is being sued by the National Football League for using some of the players' likenesses in the popular Madden NFL video game series without approval.
Supreme Court won't be there to negotiate and arbitrate between the tensions that Electronic Arts Inc. is receiving from former NFL players. According to Salon, the Supreme Court is staying out of the dispute between game maker Electronic Arts, and former National Football League players who accuse the company of using their likeliness in their popular and highly sought-out game of Madden NFL video game series. The players claim that the company didn't seek their approval to be used as characters in the video game.
Yahoo wrote that the justices appealed that the company's use of the player's likeliness would not be protected by the 'incidental use' indicated under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court further stated that the use of the players was central to EA's main commercial purpose of creating a simulation based on the real life players.
Mercury News noted that the former players of National Football League have proceeded with the lawsuit against Electronic Arts over the company's use of 'historic teams' in 2010. EA's 'historic teams' span up the players involve during the years 2001 to 2009. The lawsuit prepared by the former players was given an approval to proceed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2012.
It was previously known that the same company was already sued by college football and basketball. The suit was similar to this one where use of likeliness is being argued. It has been settled for $40 million.
Moreover, Electronic Arts Inc. has been compensating the use of players' likeliness who are currently playing in NFL and this suit filed against them said that the company is not owing the same money to the former players who were also used to create the 'historic teams.'